This is obviously a bleak take, but it seems obvious to me that it will be happening to some extent because it already is happening in our modern, highly atomised society. We can see how damaged we all are socially, but especially the younger generations, in various statistics.
Bleak? Assuming AI will be what this text assumes it will, there is no chance of most people continuing to live more or less normal lives where they'd be at a place where they would ever get to worry about something like this.
It's assuming there will be UBI schemes and benevolent billionaires. It's not bleak, it's fantastical.
Yeah. Dario Amodei was publicly saying, with a shit-eating grin, that all white-collar jobs would be gone in 6-12 months. His prediction didn't yet come true, but this is the CEO of one a suposed "public benefit corporation". These people literally want to speedrun the dystopia. Destroy a ton of jobs while making more profit, with not even a semblance of a plan for what to do with all of these jobless people or how to help them afford food and housing.
The short to medium term future seems more likely to look like a bunch of hikikomori living in miserable conditions and doomscrolling online.
It's not using the File System Access API, on Firefox it uses <input type="file"> for file-picking, and the save just downloads it. It's not synchronizing anything with your filesystem.
Firefox unfortunately does not support the File System Access API. You can try by calling the most fundamental function, the one that asks the user to select a file:
window.showOpenFilePicker()
What Firefox supports is a "File System API" which creates something similar to the other old ways of storing data in a browser, like cookies and indexeddb. You cannot use it to edit normal files on your disk.
This is my main gripe with Firefox. They force their users to either store everything in the cloud or go through the arcane "download" workflow where you have to manually save files.
> Firefox unfortunately does not support the File System Access API.
I would not call it unfortunate. Browsers should not have access to the file system, USB ports, etc. Perhaps in "PWA"s, if the user has a way of giving and withdrawing consent.
Why is that true? Some applications require file system access. People would grant the application the permission to access files like any other resource like camera, mic, location.
Because vulnerabilities, coarse access granularity and lazy or ill-informed users. E.g., you now grant cam access per domain. Changing functionality on that domain doesn't revoke permission, so a simple bait and switch is already possible. Now imagine granting access to your file system to some Microsoft domain and finding out that there was a change of heart and some new script has uploaded your files to OneDrive and deleted them from your disk.
Taking that logic of protecting users from themselves to the extreme, a website should not be able to display text either. Because it can use text to ask the user to open their explorer and delete the files manually.
I think the flow of Chrome where the user has to select a file from disk and then acknowledge a prompt that the site will have access to that file until they close the window is fine. But if Mozilla wanted to protect users from themselves even more, they could make it as strong as they like. For example, by requiring to turn the functionality on in about:config.
Not giving the user the choice at all, if they want a cloud only browser or a browser that lets them work with local files is the wrong way.
Iirc the File System Access API should always originate File objects from an input picker so that the user selects the file to be opened and not give more access to apps than users allows?
You can keep your hands on the keyboard. Some people find having to move them away from their usual home place breaks their flow.
Sure there are things like an Elgato StreamDeck that you can do similar things with but they still require you to move a hand from the keyboard.
I suppose it is similar to using voice control things like Alexa. Setting a timer by hand in the kitchen isn’t exactly hard but it is so much more convenient to do it by voice if your hands are covered in raw chicken juice or the like.
> A two hour commute is much less of a problem if you can be a bit productive.
A two hour commute sounds absolutely unbearable to my ears. I guess it makes sense if you are able work for 4 hours daily inside a train or something, but that's already half of the workday, i.e. you might as well just work from home.
I had about a 90 minute commute--each way--for about 18 months. Trust me; it's not nirvana even if it was by rail/subway except for about a 7 minute drive to the station. Wasn't sustainable long-term--which dot-bomb ensured it wasn't. Latterly, I was about 2 hours each way to go into our city office which I really didn't enjoy doing.
If you could reliably work from your autonomous vehicle for two hours you might be able to include that as part of your work day, e.g. 2 hours working on the ride in, 4 hours in the office, 2 hours on the ride home for the full 8 hours. If not, you could fall asleep in the backseat, watch some TV shows, or... you know. Just make sure your windows are tinted. In any case, I'd definitely take a 2 hour "do whatever in the backseat" commute over an hour-long "pay attention to the road at all times" commute.
This is all predicated on true autonomous vehicles though, not the half-baked non-solutions that exist today.
I don’t agree at all. A train ride is not that different from what you’re suggesting a self-driving car will be… and I certainly wouldn’t want to spend 4 hours a day sitting in a vehicle. Even if it was my own first class seat, or even an entire train car.
> What is the cost balance from being that net exporter? Are they selling energy for more than they buy?
Electricity production is a subset of energy production. A lot of factories use natural gas directly, they don't produce electricity first. ICE cars also use petrol directly, they don't first generate electricity.
reply